@dansup@mastodon.social Is it a whitelist only? because any time I've tried passing videos from my instance in the past it didn't work

@sam correct, we’re working on improving this with media proxies so we don’t need to store all remote media (which is the reasoning behind this)

@dansup@mastodon.social That is a good thing, do we have a ETA for this feature or a way we can request our external accounts to be whitelisted on Loops so we aren't just posting on both?

Will you use gts reply control style?

@gabboman no.

Pixelfed already implemented these years ago!

@julian @julian I think that solution developed for GoToSocial is only suitable for certain types of micro-blogging platforms, because they treat each comment as an independent context. But we can adopt their way of specifying permissions.

@silverpill That's on my mind too, but I'm not far enough yet with the conversion to judge whether the approach can be unified with context-awareness. There is already language on how replies should not be allowed to widen the reply permissions of a parent post.

I suspect a sticking point between the microblogging and threadiverse worlds will be whether someone is allowed to _narrow_ the reply audience within a thread – in effect letting people leave locked comments wherever.

@julian@activitypub.space @general

@julian@fietkau.social ah christ, yes. I suppose at the end of the day threadiverse software will still have to contend with content that exists independently of others, and so Note objects with their own interaction controls must still be respected.

It would be up to each individual implementation as to whether narrowing of scope is allowed from within the context of a thread.

Could you imagine, though, being so incensed that you reply to somebody disagreeing with them and then lock interaction controls so that they cannot reply? is that where we are now...

cc @silverpill@mitra.social

@julian@activitypub.space It's a bit like replying to someone and then immediately blocking them. Has happened to me on here, seen it loads on forums.

There are at least two ways to react to reply (or other interaction) controls: to treat them as gospel and prevent people on your platform from performing the action, or to acknowlede them as filters and display a banner or something on the reply form saying that the parent poster and people on other platforms may not see the reply.

@silverpill

@julian I was going to use the Pixelfed vocab, but I do really like the GtS implementation.

I remember discussing this with @dumpsterqueer a few years ago, and it looks much more solid now.

Perhaps we'd be better off adopting GtS interactionPolicy for Loops and Pixelfed, we already support QuotePosts.

Thanks for reminding me, I'll let you know when its implemented!

@dansup @dumpsterqueer Yeah, the version of the page I linked above still has the WIP warning, but I'm told everything is stable now. I suppose I should have linked here: https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/

There are some details to be figured out (as you can see in the other replies) but I'm generally a fan of the approach.

I'll ping you again when the FEP is available!

@julian @dumpsterqueer Ok perfect, thank you!

I joined the GtS Code matrix channel if that is a better place to discuss this, cheers!

@dansup on mastodon I don't comment with public visibility but I use unlisted. But those comments don't appear under loops and pixelfed posts? Could this be fixed?